Winner take all Capitalism is good for America

Originally posted by cdtm
I'm fine with the rich keeping more of their money, to be honest.

The fact is, taxes don't make the poor any less poor. That's why I can't understand the "Tax the rich more" calls.

Whether the rich keep it, or the Government takes it, the poor ain't getting it.

Why? They use more resources than everyone and pay less as a percentage than anyone (17% according to the IRS). Creating elite, wealthy families is anti-american and wealth inequality causes financial and political instability.

Inequality is what the system is all about. To 'capitalise' over the financially less. That's why poverty increases. A competitive economy is all about survival of the wealthiest.

Wealth is supposed to come from labour, that is the main justification of the system, but that is rarely the case, especially in a 'free' market, whatever that is.

Originally posted by cdtm
I'm fine with the rich keeping more of their money, to be honest.

The fact is, taxes don't make the poor any less poor. That's why I can't understand the "Tax the rich more" calls.

Whether the rich keep it, or the Government takes it, the poor ain't getting it.

But that would imply giving money to the poor is good, which is not what capitalism is, at all.

If it gets most of the money in to the free market where most of the people have the opportunity to get it though, then that's capitalism.

That's just covering up a flaw in the 'free market' system. If you have to socialise the money in order to keep capitalism happening, then it doesn't work. As I said, it's survival of the wealthiest, therefore it's more capitalistic for those at the bottom to die, seeing as they aren't giving anything to society.

No labour, no wage. No property, no trade. That's the system, *****.

Economically possibly, but like anything that pushes people to influence others through marketing for example I think it can twist opinions. Too many fake, greedy/money grabbing people cannot be good on a personal level in any soceity so unless this is only an economic question then no, capitalism is not really "good", just useful on a broader scale to keep a country and/or its citizens wealthy. But theres no use being wealthy if all you are is a puppet in a bigger wealthier assholes game. Ants can be drones and just mill about in the dirt but I dont think people should be.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Economically possibly, but like anything that pushes people to influence others through marketing for example I think it can twist opinions. Too many fake, greedy/money grabbing people cannot be good on a personal level in any soceity so unless this is only an economic question then no, capitalism is not really "good", just useful on a broader scale to keep a country and/or its citizens wealthy. But theres no use being wealthy if all you are is a puppet in a bigger wealthier assholes game. Ants can be drones and just mill about in the dirt but I dont think people should be.

The only way I see it working is if everyone is given the same amount of money from the gecko and, like a game, everyone says "GO!" Systematically, we then find out whatever way possible to turn that money into more money and those who lose their money will fall, until the winner stands at the top of the pyramid with a monopoly over everyone else, for he/she was the smartest at gaining the most profit, and with all the money will also have all the power.

That is of course my opinion, but if that is true, then it's especially ironic that a market can only be free if you socialise it first.

Hang on, isn't that along the lines of what Grate the Vraya said?

Originally posted by Grate the Vraya
If it gets most of the money in to the free market where most of the people have the opportunity to get it though, then that's capitalism.

**** me!

Why can't people be both instead of one or the other? Capitalism is good in some ways and so is socialism. The people who earn wealth should have it, and those who are willing to try to earn it should be supported so that they can have a chance to try. The weak and elderly (being incapable of trying to earn wealth)should also be supported by those that aren't incapable. We are social and we are individuals.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Why can't people be both instead of one or the other? Capitalism is good in some ways and so is socialism. The people who earn wealth should have it, and those who are willing to try to earn it should be supported so that they can have a chance to try. The weak and elderly (being incapable of trying to earn wealth)should also be supported by those that aren't incapable. We are social and we are individuals.

Because that would mean balance and that isn't the direction this country is heading. These days it's all about the few at the top keeping more and more for themselves.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Why can't people be both instead of one or the other? Capitalism is good in some ways and so is socialism. The people who earn wealth should have it, and those who are willing to try to earn it should be supported so that they can have a chance to try. The weak and elderly (being incapable of trying to earn wealth)should also be supported by those that aren't incapable. We are social and we are individuals.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Why can't people be both instead of one or the other? Capitalism is good in some ways and so is socialism. The people who earn wealth should have it, and those who are willing to try to earn it should be supported so that they can have a chance to try. The weak and elderly (being incapable of trying to earn wealth)should also be supported by those that aren't incapable. We are social and we are individuals.

Originally posted by Grate the Vraya
Seems the rich need to stop hoarding the money so much. I'm not saying that we just take it from them

Originally posted by cdtm
Greed/self interest is a pretty big part of human nature. It would be a boon to society if everyone worked for the betterment of everyone else, sure, but I can't think of a way to "force" people to think beyond themselves, their families, or their immediate communities... Or give up their unneeded luxuries, for that matter.

I do think that the rich should be taxed fairly, and that that is not the case everywhere, in the US for example apparently not. But on the whole many traits of capitalism have made our lives enormously better, and so have many of the wealthiest people. I do think that people that have the ability to create wealth for everyone should be rewarded accordingly. I also think that what we need to battle is absolute poverty more than anything, and that we have been doing a decently good job of that in the western world, although much more can and should be accomplished even there.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I do think that people that have the ability to create wealth for everyone should be rewarded accordingly.

Originally posted by 753
hum... you really think thats how it goes?

Yeah, to a degree. I wouldn't deny that their are people taking advantage of the system without adding any real value, but I don't think it is necessarily the norm.

A problem we have in big corporations is that it is hard (or perhaps on either or both sides undesired) to determine the specific wealth of each contributor. But on average people get rewarded as to their contribution. Sadly that might mean that some workers get a third of what they are worth and other's three times.

The problem with an excess of reward and big business, one of the key fallacies of capitalism, is that once a business becomes too big, the focus moves away from innovation and toward crushing the competition using any means.
It's one of the reasons the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was passed and why in order to fix the economy, one of the steps should be breaking up and auctioning off large corporations.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, to a degree. I wouldn't deny that their are people taking advantage of the system without adding any real value, but I don't think it is necessarily the norm.

A problem we have in big corporations is that it is hard (or perhaps on either or both sides undesired) to determine the specific wealth of each contributor. But on average people get rewarded as to their contribution. Sadly that might mean that some workers get a third of what they are worth and other's three times.

Originally posted by 753
exectuvies make literaly hundreds of thosands mroe than factory workers, do you think their labour generates this much more money? but most importantly, owners get even more than that and this is tied to property and not to work input or its outcome

Usually without owners there wouldn't be a job though. There wouldn't be the wealth created either.

I do agree to a degree though I find some property, especially intellectual property, problematic. But very often the owner of a company did put in a lot of time and valuable work or took large risks to create the wealth.